So you're not an Atheist? You believe in the supernatural? Cool. At least you spelled Atheist correctly.

Let's see. What supernatural stuff meets your needs? Astrology? Dowsing? Rabbits' feet? Dwarves bowling in the mountains to make thunder? Apollo dragging a light across the sky every day to bring light? Christianity? Buddhism? Islam? Hinduism? Judaism? Any other god? Uri Geller? Or would it be something more mundane like the Yankees being the greatest team ever? Or maybe you believe in heroin or some other drug?

I'm sorry but the lack of information in your post leaves you ranked as a troll to me. Come back when you have something to say.

I used to be agnostic, but came to the realization that I really don't believe in any gods and that it was pointless to leave the door open in case one should decide to wander in, so now I'm an atheist.

I have no quarrel with agnosticism. I was agnostic for a while. Then I did my research and discovered that there is NO evidence that gods exist. All the apologetics written by believers are based only of faith, not on facts, evidence, or reasonable logic. So, I place gods in the category of fairies, fire-breathing dragons, and other beings that are obviously fictitious. I am now an atheist.

I do not care.

Thanks.

I do not state that gods do not exist. However, I do THINK that gods do not exist with the same confidence that I THINK that vampires, werewolves, poltergeists, ghosts, and other things that go bump in the night do not exist. This approaches the limits of 100%.

From: [en.m.wikipedia.org]

"In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

I am atheist, I don't care about definitions or differences, thank you!

So, be one.

Though rather than leaving us hanging, it might be interesting if you stated the "huge" difference ...

Atheist here and don't care who knows it!

There's a category of atheist that is essentially agnostic.

:-----:

"Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist."

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

You are 100% correct - agnostics claim that they don't know either way, while atheists are convinced that there aren't any gods based on all available evidence. Also, some atheists wonder why agnostics can't see how ridiculously stupid the entire concept of gods are in the first place, and view them as wishy-washy fence riders that just can't let go of the brainwashing that religion has indoctrinated into the world. Or so I've heard...

Agnostic is questioning Atheist no longer question they can't believe

Depends on who you ask

I used to be agnostic, now I'm athiest. However, I'm not a big fan of any labels on people so when asked, I just say I don't believe.

There are atheist agnostics and there are theist agnostics. I am an atheist agnostic.

Not as much as you think

I’m an atheist, a humanist, a secular woman, a fuckin bad ass goddess, I can keep going

I'll alert the media.

Not again. People post about this subject all the time.

At age 13, I became an atheist when I realized the Bible is just a book of stories written by men.

"I don't believe in an invisible being that resides somewhere beyond the clouds," I tell Jehovah's Witnesses. That shuts them up. Good.

@DonaldHRoberts

For two days, I have been unable to use the reply and edit buttons. Glad it's not just me.

I sent a message to Agnostic.com, asking them to fix it.

To contact Agnostic.com, hover your mouse over the tab, Learn, at the top of this page. Click on Contact.

gods are myth. call me what you wish

One can be an agnostic and an atheist. A theist is a believer and an a-theist is a non believer. Atheism is a response to the claim there is a god. Thats all. One can simultaneously state they don't know if a god exists or even state it is unknowable and still ne an atheist.

If asked if you believe in a god and you say anything other than yes you are an atheist. To think otherwise is a category error. We aren't talking labels. Anyone can label themselves whatever they want nut don't tell me what i believe or don't either.

OK, but people have different uses for those words. So if you don’t explain what you mean by them then you’re just farting in ghe wind.

I am also not an atheist.  I was never religious.  Both my parents and grandparents were not religious.  I never set foot in a church until my first concert in one at the age of about 17.  Growing up I thought the bible was a book of fables like Aesop's fables, lessons to teach kids.  I didn't read the whole thing until I was in my 40s.  I know what the definition of atheism is, so please don't lecture me on that.  The things I have faith in are family, nature, music and science.  So I refer to myself as a Naturalist and leave it at that.  If people question me, I say the woods is my church.  Life is my god.   

look at everyone making decisions about what an atheist is and what an agnostic is when in fact there is such a huge difference that sometimes there is an overlap! i don't happen to have an overlap. but look, someone below said an agnostic doesn't care whether there is a god and an atheist cares very much. well, i am an atheist, not an agnostic, and i do NOT care at ALL whether there are any gods. i know agnostics who don't claim to know whether or not there are any gods and also don't care. so that definition is true of some but it's not true of all, or even most, so it's not definitional at all. it's like saying "dogs are animals who don't bite." "no, dogs are animals who do bite." some dogs bite, some don't, and the definition of dog has nothing to do with biting. the definitions of agnostic and atheist have nothing to do with whether we CARE whether or not there are gods. the definitions also have nothing to do with whether or not we're curious, whether or not we're arroganst (i've heard that too) or whether or not we want proof either way.

so you are an agnostic and not an atheist. okay. fine. that's your business. and you think there is a huge difference. wrong, but okay, whatever. were you planning to support that statement in any way, or even just present what you think the huge difference is?

g